The valuation of assets in an inheritance is a crucial aspect for both its partition and the fulfillment of tax obligations. In our daily practice, we often find that the criteria applicable to each area—civil and fiscal—can diverge, leading to conflicts that must be managed with technical and strategic precision. This article explores these criteria, their application, and strategies to minimize discrepancies between both regimes, with special attention to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and recent legislative reforms.
Valuation for Civil Purposes
For civil purposes, the valuation of assets in an inheritance is primarily carried out for its partition among the heirs. According to the Civil Code, assets must be valued according to their market value at the time of partition (art. 1061 CC). This criterion aims to reflect the real and current value of the assets, facilitating an equitable distribution among the heirs. However, the question arises as to how to determine that market value objectively and consensually among the interested parties.
Sometimes, the appointment of independent experts may provide an adequate solution, although not without costs and potential controversies. Jurisprudence has emphasized the need for objectivity in these valuations, as highlighted in the Supreme Court ruling of February 19, 2024, which underscores the importance of using recognized and documented criteria to avoid future challenges.
Valuation for Fiscal Purposes
In the fiscal realm, the value of assets for the purposes of the Inheritance and Donations Tax (ISD) is, according to Law 11/2021, the market value, defined as the most probable value at which the asset could be sold between independent parties. This definition, although similar to the civil one, includes relevant peculiarities, such as the cadastral reference value that has been applied since the aforementioned law, providing an objective standard aimed at reducing litigation.
However, the State Agency for Tax Administration (AEAT) retains the authority to verify the value declared by taxpayers, which can lead to significant discrepancies. According to the Supreme Court ruling of March 25, 2025, the AEAT must adequately justify any adjustments based on recognized valuation methods. This limits the discretion of the tax authority and protects the rights of the taxpayer.
Verification of Values and Contradictory Expert Valuation
When the AEAT disagrees with the declared value, it initiates a verification of values that can be challenged through contradictory expert valuation. This procedure allows the taxpayer to present an expert report that counters the value established by the administration. The key here is the choice of a qualified expert whose methodology is solid and well-documented.
The Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) has emphasized in resolutions from 2025 the importance of ensuring that expert reports are based on objective criteria and not merely on subjective estimates. In our experience, a well-prepared report can tip the balance in favor of the taxpayer, avoiding costly subsequent litigation.
Strategies to Minimize Differences
To minimize the differences between civil and fiscal valuations, it is essential to adopt a proactive strategy from the outset of the succession process. First, consistency and thorough documentation are fundamental. Valuation reports should be consistent and based on verifiable data.
Additionally, it is advisable to anticipate possible tax verifications by preparing additional documentation that justifies the value assigned to each asset. Early and transparent communication with the heirs can also prevent conflicts in the partition, aligning expectations from the very beginning.
- Thoroughly document the market values used.
- Use recognized experts to support the valuations.
- Prepare solid expert reports in case of discrepancies with the AEAT.
In conclusion, the correct valuation of assets in an inheritance is a process that requires precision and strategy. Management tools like LexPartis can be of great help to professionals, allowing for a more rigorous and efficient administration of these complex succession processes.